From: tvest@eyeconomics.com Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:34:52 -0500
On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:07 AM, TJ wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: tvest@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tvest@eyeconomics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12 To: Richard Barnes Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
<SNIP>
But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address- intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements?
Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as a swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ...
/TJ
I have no particular reason to to doubt that claim, and lots of reasons to actively hope that you are right.
That said, the appearance of more public commitments like this -- and sooner rather than later -- could make a large difference, e.g., by reducing the general level of uncertainty (and uncertainty-amplifying speculation) during the terminal stages of IPv4 allocation.
While no commercial entity would (and none should) willingly make such a public commitment before they're ready, it would be prudent to consider the potential downsides of that looming uncertainty when making judgements about how "ready" (or perhaps "ready enough") should be defined.
Might be worth noting that Comcast has been using IPv6 heavily for internal connectivity (including router access) for some time and already had substantial experience with IPv6, so I suspect that they are ahead of others on this. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751